Under Threat Again: Will the Obama Administration protect roadless forests?

Roadless areas now comprise only a small portion of all National Forest lands. Why would anyone continue to build more roads? These areas are important wildlife habitat and keeping these areas wild just makes sense. All people care about is development....What is the matter with everyone? Uphold the Roadless Area Ruling, it is there for a purpose. I live in Montana and I am sure that mining companies and other extractive industries would love to have these areas opened up. Is anything sacred anymore?

The introduction of roads into undeveloped areas would allow devastation and exploitation of one of our most valuable carbon storing reserves; Trees! CO2 levels [atmospheric carbons] have been on a steady increase for 600,000 years. These levels have NEVER gone down, only up! Trees are the best defense we have against bad weather and pervasive snow melt. If one looks at the enormous cost that will come by cleaning up the air one can see that as a natural carbon storing factory, the tree is the most economical choice. It will take 50 mature(100yrs) forests the size of New Jersey to capture the current loose atmospheric carbon. My preliminary studies show that out of all the technological devices we have for capturing the global atmospheric carbon, the tree is the most efficient. Right now, the tree is our best hope for slowing the ever increasing rate of atmospheric carbon. Therefore I conclude that any forest that is without access should be allowed to remain wild and free of all roads, dirt, gravel, paved. All roads should be banned. Edeichinger/kingofallclergy Arlington texas 2010

The author of this Colorado rule post should read the original 2001 roadless rule. That rule allows road construction for mining, oil and gas leasing, and to meet all outstanding and reserved rights (e.g., split-estate mineral interests). In addition, the 2001 roadless rule permits logging in roadless areas under several circumstances. Misrepresenting the 2001 rule as some sort of pristine preservation policy does not assist your readers in understanding the true issues at stake in the Colorado rule.

You know, it's amazing how few so-called conservatives are interested in conservation. So let's call these people by their real name, false-conservatives. John is one of these. The Forest Service admits that it cannot properly maintain even half the roads that it has built, so it certainly should not build any more. Any forester (I have a BS and MS in that field from Clemson University) can tell you that any road degrades water quality through increased erosion and stream crossings, not to mention damage to soils. And roads that are not properly maintained do much more damage. Many of the forest resource companies have depleted their private lands through unsustainable harvesting and are now looking to do the same to our federal lands. It would be a shame to let them do this. I specialize in old growth and more than 95% has been destroyed. Old growth has unique characteristics that, by definition, take centuries to develop. To cut it is to destroy it. I say let the roadless rule stand.

There is only one reason to build a road, and that's to get access to something or someplace. To build a road you must know where you're going and what you want. Obviously, the Governor has been informed by forest and mineral industries about some money making opportunities and he wants to cash in. If he makes money for the state, he feels it will help him keep his job longer--and that's all this is about, job security under the "helping the people" facade. No consideration is being given to the forest or the animals that live there. They are expendable under the guise of progress. I hope President Obama does not cave on this since his popularity polls are down.

The industries that profit from the exploitation of our natural resources seem to be in a dectructive comfort zone of doing what it is that they have always done and avoiding the labor of change,even if it is nessacary and obviously in the best interest of everyone. It would seem logical that these very wealthy companies should invest in new morally and ecologically sound alternatives which in time would also generate profit without the destruction of our remaining natural resources. And by resources I dont just mean for industry.Our natural areas provide a resource of inspiration,art,imagination,knowledge,exploration,solitude,recreation,medicinal,food,water,and reserviors for the complex dimensions of life. The roadless rule is a GREAT idea and should remain absolutly.

Have to disagree with John on this. I've backpacked and climbed in the national forest areas of Colorado for years. I've seen the road remains, the scars from mining, the old structures left from mining exploration, the evil-colored water leaking out of rock and into streams. I think Colorado's wild areas have been compromised quite enough. They've been beaten on for a century and a half. Time so save what's left.
And for the record, my 30+ years of visiting the backcountry has been done in a series of small cars. SUVs indeed! I think you have us confused with that ORV crowd...

I'm not sure John's comments even deserve an answer, but here it is. Let's get something straight. It's the environmentalists that are pushing for renewable energy. For anybody that's been involved in the environmental community or even the general public, that seems like a no-brainer. Environmentalists drive fuel efficient cars on average more than the general public and we're the ones pushing for new fuel efficiency standards and new technologies. I purposefully have never bought an SUV for that very reason. You're using the old disingenuous arguments that somehow make the environmentalists seem like the enemy of the environment. Opening up more wilderness is a short-term answer that only wastes a little energy that will last our country very little time. If you believe that we need renewable energy, then make an effort to contact your United State Senators and let them know that you support a strong energy and climate bill that emphasizes renewable energy and imposes a cap and trade system....a system that wields the power of the free market to reach our goals of decreasing greenhouse gases and will help put renewable energies on par with our antiquated, polluting sources of energy.

Yes I agree partially Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter Colorado has some rich resources maybe half 4.2 million acres of roadless forests from the 2001 national Roadless . It can used for energy resources. So, if your organinzation can accept this compromize. I will accept you You enivormentalize have gone too far. Nearly half of you drive SUV"S that get only 10 to 25 mpg I 'm very limited on income and I get on my old 1992 Honda Accoord about 26 mpg low and 33 mpg. If you want oil we must end our dependence on oil foriegn buyers I have nothing against these countries it 's just America needs to more energy independence.